JULIO ARAUJO-QUINONEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71225 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO CESAR ARAUJO-QUINONEZ, Petitioner, No. 10-71225 Agency No. A072-397-747 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Julio Cesar Araujo-Quinonez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Araujo-Quinonez s motion to reopen due to lack of notice where the record reflects that AraujoQuinonez s counsel of record was served with the hearing notice. See id. (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to alien). The agency denied Araujo-Quinonez s motion to reopen due to exceptional circumstances as untimely. He failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the agency s denial of his motion to reopen on this basis. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief). Araujo-Quinonez s contention regarding oral warnings fails because former INA § 242(B)(e)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(1) (1996), pertains to eligibility for relief, not reopening. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-71225

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.